Seán Kyne (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is welcome. I suppose, at the start of the summer recess, the Minister did not think this would be an issue he would be facing in government. More importantly, it is an issue for the parents and children impacted over a long number of years who, unfortunately, are now suffering, although through no fault of the Minister.

Previous speakers mentioned the need to examine how parliamentary questions are answered by CHI. I would go further and state that not only the Department of Health but also all other Departments have outsourced parliamentary questions to State agencies and bodies. In some cases, direct hotlines are used to answer questions rather than having the relevant Minister involved. That protects Ministers to some degree but it also allows for a certain distance from oversight. That should be looked at. I am not saying that the Minister for Health has the time to be involved in dealing with all parliamentary questions, but outsourcing them to the HSE because it is the service provider gives a certain leeway to the latter and to other bodies. Across Government, that could be looked at again.

The use of springs relates to scoliosis procedures. It is part of the investigation, but concerns have been brought to my attention regarding the conduct of CHI in the context of other areas of care. I do not refer here to scoliosis but, rather, to the impact on children who have defects in their legs and who had rods, etc., inserted and to follow-up care they received. Regardless of whether that is, as others have said, due to the pressures on the system and the fact that there was pressure to get procedures done - we all want to see the maximum number of procedures performed - we do not want to see haphazard work and we do not want to see follow-up care not being provided for those who have received procedures. I have evidence, from a parent whose child was obliged to wait months and then years for treatment regarding the follow-up care received. Despite reporting that there were issues with flexion of the leg, when they finally got an appointment on a Thursday, they were brought in for a procedure on the Monday. It was welcome and fast once the appointment was obtained, but that child should have been seen the previous year. There should have been a follow-up after the procedure. I have passed that matter on to CHI. As for the impact, there was further infection. There was all sorts of things that could have been prevented if follow-up treatment had been received. That matter is separate from scoliosis, but falls within the remit of CHI. There are more issues at play other than scoliosis.

We have seen in a range of issues within the Department of Health. There are internal reviews and there is expertise sourced from outside. One of the issues in my party's Private Members' motion is why these reviews did not pick this up and the number of instances where it has occurred. I accept Senator Clonan's point on modification. That is interesting. The Senator states that there is international best practice, but in this case where an uncertified product was used, for instance, was it in their pocket or how was it brought in and how did it bypass all the different procedures that should be in place for the provision of adequate healthcare and surgery? How all this happened defies logic. It is important that we get to the bottom of this matter as quickly as possible and that we ensure it cannot happen again, not only within CHI but also across our public and private hospitals.